LLC -

I am very calm. I was having a tame conversation. So perhaps you'd better relax and stop trying to read into something that just not there.

What did I read into that happens to be so nonexistant? Everything was indeed tame. I had a tame exchange of comments with Klydon, which were very interesting, entertaining and enjoyable, you and SB made tame comments on setting aside moral construct and views in order to guage the esteem of the art. I made a very tame response in regard of my views on setting aside strong beliefs, and hoped for nothing more but another tame and intelligent comment, or no response at all, if that be more suitable. Instead, you make wrongful assumptions that I am attempting to bar your opinions, which is not the case. And at that, you use a linguistic tone that was intentionally hostile. Then I responded as tame as possible to an obvious act of hostility. I honestly just don't get what you're trying to do here.

Truthfully TIS, according to the Bible, John 19:23/24 :

"Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did."




So do I.




Depends on who's doing the talking. It seems to me that when those who still hold certain things sacred speak up when they feel that what they hold sacred is being threatened, there is a faction of people out there, who while advocating their right to feel and speak their mind, want to stop you from speaking your mind. It seems as though this faction of people want to say and do whatever they want about whatever they want because they feel that it is their right, which I don't deney it is. But they seem to get all twisted and defensive when somoene else decides to stand up for what they may believe and hold sacred, and immedeatly tell them that they have no right to say or feel the way that they do.

That's exactly what has transpired in this topic.

Some here have said things and made statements about their believing that this artist has every right to portray his sculpture in the manner that he wants to. Fine, they have a right to their opinion.

But when some, like myself, said things and made statements about our believing that this artist has, in our opinion, desicrated (spelling) the holiness of what we hold as sacred, it was implied that we were narrow minded.

Just trying to get people, who may not believe in the sacredness of another's religous upbringing, to still try and at least respect what that other person may hold sacred.

I respect your beliefs, despite what you may think. I just don't get the hostility of that one post. It seemed irrelevant and out of context.

I still don't get how this is desecrating anything. A penis? Jesus might've been crucified without a loin cloth...what's the big deal? Seriously?

D.A., I'm trying to think of a good example to give you so you can perhaps have something to compare it to. I'll try this........When someone is found naked, dead on the street for instance, the cops or whomever comes and usually the first thing they do is cover them up, as a show of respect so that the body is not completed exposed for all to see. Does that make sense??? Right now that's the first example that popped in my head.

TIS

Btw, I don't know if I'd call this crucifix sculpture descretation so much as I'd call it disrespect.

I have a problem with just this aspect. I think it was not proportional and looked too tall and arms and legs were too long with respect to the head.

You do?

Does anyone know what a gag is anymore? My goodness. This is ridiculous. Tommy Lee? Hello? John Holmes' ridiculous endowment? Gags.




I can see where you're getting at, and that's a good example.

OK... lets try this scenario:

The City fathers of Miami want to start a new ad campaign to attract tourists. They want it to "show" that Miami is full of sexy people, yet also appeals to families. They decide to "sculpt" a naked statue out of homegrown products.

For argument's sake lets say they search through a few hundred thousand women who can act as the sculpture's model. They decide that your mother is the perfect candidate.

My question is: "Should they make the labia out of orange peels"?

.

.

.

.

.

My intention, DA, is certainly not to be crude about your mother. I'm trying to make you see that you wouldn't like that idea and would be upset by it. You, like most of us, probably hold your mom to be something "sacred" and would find that idea repulsive.

Maybe, just maybe, Christians find this sculpture of Jesus to be the same.

I knew someone would bring the mother angle soon, didn't expect you SC. But the comparison is not fair at all. Why? because the only common point is the word "respect". Otherwise it is comparing apples to oranges(no pun intended). See, the only people who have a right to decide about one's mother are her family members. Whereas, God (Jesus or any other god from other religion) is not a private property. millions of people follow a particular god and all of them do it in their own way. They all have right to view and imagine God in the way they want. If the sculptor is not a christian or is an atheist AND wanted to show Jesus in a poor light, then I can agree to all of your arguments. If not, it is just intolerance in my view.

And that's disrespectful, because...? I mean, I don't get all fed up if someone makes an athiest joke, do I? No. Do I get fed up if someone makes a hippie joke? No. Do I get fed up if someone makes a joke about environmentalism? no. Do I get fed up if someone makes a joke about any other institution I believe in? No. I respect woman for several reasons, among them going through child birth, a process I am sure is painful and agonizing. Does this mean I can't make fun of it? I don't see why not. If I were to, in all seriousness, say, "God sucks, blah blah blah", then you could feel free to eat my body alive like savages weilding sharp fangs and a copy of every Slayer album known to man. But I don't say that. So sit back, relax, and give me something to piss on.

Thanks DA, at least someone is obscenely immune to obscenity.

I don't follow your logic, svsg.

If one holds something dear to them, whether it be a loved family member or an ideal, it makes no difference what that exact relationship is. The fact that its dear to them makes any perceived slight to be real.

The Christians who are speaking out against this sculpture have every right to do so. Its not a question of art to them.

LLC, Perhaps your sense of humor is not amusing in this context. This statue, for whatever reason, offended a great number of people. Why would you want to make jokes about something that people find offensive? Perhaps that's just your way, but it comes across as disrespectful and intolerant. If that's your personality, then fine. But be prepared for people to be offended by it.

I understand the point you're trying to make, SC. I myself am a Catholic (not a strong one, though) and find Jesus sacred, but I can be open about interpretations about him as well. I also believe the issue is with Jesus being portrayed in the nude, with a penis. Now, to me, I just find it weird that people are getting outraged by this, because supposedly (I dunno, I wasn't there) crucifixtions were done in the nude, and Jesus was crucified.

This is my syllogism for this,

Crucifixions were done in the nude,
Jesus was crucified,
therefore Jesus was most likely crucified in the nude.

The crucifixtion of Jesus to Catholics at least is probably the most recognizable image we associate with Jesus. So I have no problem with this artist trying to portray that, and in probable historical accuracy. Not to mention the clever title ("My Sweet Lord"? Can anyone come up with something more clever?) and showcasing it during Holy Week, and linking it with the candy and Easter, as Capo said.

OK... I see what you're saying.

It appears to me that those who have found this to be offensive (here, in this thread, anyway) are from an "older" generation. To me (and possibly to them as well) its a question of decency. Looking back on TIS' last post here, I think she summed it up succinctly.

I find no fault with the naked human body (except perhaps for an 85 year old, fat, saggy woman) and using it as art is of no issue with me. I do, however, understand that some whom regard Jesus as the son of God find this repulsive and I applaud them for speaking out. A fig leaf, a loincloth, a pixelled box or whatever is appropriate in some cases. This is one of them.

I don't know what's more disturbing...that mental image, or that you find no fault in the naked body of an 85 year old, fat, saggy man.

I agree SC. It's becoming more and more clear that the differences on this matter are generational rather than religious.

Have you seen many saggy 85 year old women ?

I wouldn't be LOOKING at a naked 85 year old man.

(Damn, thats saying I WOULD be looking at a naked 85 year old woman ).

My last date.

SC, the difference is that religion is belief based and open to public and relationship with mother is just for the son. Also, some religion like Islam, accepts the fact that Jesus existed, but its followers do not accept that Jesus was their savior. So the very fact that someone has a different(and not so sacred) view on the very SAME Jesus should make their belief offensive to the followers of Jesus. But most christians don't have an inherent problem with the existence of Islam which does not recognize Jesus in such an important way. So why can't you treat this artist to belong to a different religion altogether philosophically speaking? One who sees Jesus in a different way than the conventional Catholic view.

You're missing the point I'm trying to make, svsg.

Its a PERSONAL decision (whether it be about a statue of your mother or of your God). It doesn't matter what the hell OTHERS think about it, but its about your own PERSONAL belief on it.

Art can be very subjective. This is a good example of that.

It's offensive to some people!! Why is that so difficult to understand?? It's stripping something that some people consider sacred and exposing it for the world to see.

I would find a nude picture of the Pope or of Sister Teresa offensive. They are human. However, IMHO, they are without sexuality, as they are celibate humans who are married to their service to God. Perhaps you wouldn't find those photos offensive, but I would. Is that so incomprehensible??

Just to clarify, I have no problem if many people find it offensive or just plain bad piece of art. Feeling and expressing is one thing, but to go to the extent of forcing the exhibition to close (by making threats) is not right.

I believe that you hit the nail on the head SC.

And your point is now quite evident due to a reference made in jest in an earlier post here:



As the saying goes " The truth is sometimes said in jest."

Some of us have to look at fat, saggy 42 year old bodies. Maybe it'll be a glimpse into the future.

One man's junk is another man's treasure I guess. I don't see why the sculpture of "The Thinker" has to be nakes. No one seems to find that offensive. Why does he have to be naked to be thinking. But then again, most men think with their penises.

And I agree 100%. No acts of violence or rioting should be used to get the point across. And they weren't.

And while some individual loose cannons probably called in and made threats, that action was not representative of any organized religious group.

And as far as this topic here in this thread is concerned, all that was done on my end was to make a point that I found the display to be distasteful, and the artwork itself to be ugly.

And some found offense to the fact that I felt this way.

So it wasn't ok that some, like myself, took offense to the display, but it was ok for some to take offense to those who were offended by the display.

And most woman provoke thought .